[Sabarimala Reference] Nine Judge Bench Hearing -Live-Updates From Supreme Court

CJI asks Nariman about a case which was cited by Sr. Adv. Parasaran as a precedent.

CJI: If your contention is correct that there is no provision for referring a matter before review is pending, what happens ?

“When a review is pending, the idea is to hear it.” Nariman say

F S Nariman : When questions have been long settled, SC cannot unsettle them using its inherent powers.

F S Nariman : Ordinarily review petitions ought to proceed on the principle that they are for correction. Writ petitions don’t have any such restrictions.

CJI asks Nariman “Can it not be said that the Court found it important to consider the issues in Sabarimala, but also found that there were other connected issues. And on that basis, they decided to keep the review at bay?”

Nariman : “This is not technically A v. B or X. v. Y. The essence of the case was about the religious denomination. That had been answered. Art. 25/26 only apply to religion or religious denomination or sect.”

CJI asks if a review is filed against a judgement, is the appeal reopened ? Nariman answers that this can be done only if it is allowed by the Court.

“In 2017, in this case, 3 Hon’ble Judges referred the matter to a larger Bench with the questions which arose. The Bench of 5 then answered the questions. Then a review was filed. The scope of the review is not the scope of the original petition. This is not a continuation of the proceeding.”

Sr Adv Nariman also refers to Shirur Math case which was a full court judgement with all 8 judges.

Nariman refers to Art. 145(3), which says that minimum strength of a Constitution Bench must be 5.

“Constitution contemplated this at a time when the strength of the SC was 8"

Sr Adv Fali S Nariman makings submissions now

"SG says that a frivolous objection has been raised. Let me deal with that frivolous objection.”